From pollution to politics, the era of deception and duplicity has
reached new heights and hijacked almost every form of media in the
world. In the last frontiers for truth such as the internet,
disinformation operations are in full swing to discredit and destroy any
semblance of authentic and factual information available to the public.
How many more lies will people around the world accept as truth? Some
say a global awakening is taking place, but at what cost? Will it take
the destruction of most of the earth and its resources before people are
enlightened?
The escalating media and political reports are so far fetched, cunning,
and so beyond reality, it's as if each is trying to top the other with
one sinister plot after the next. To demonstrate the outright lies by
national governments and the media, let's take three examples from the
last year alone, including the H1N1 scandal, airport body scanners and
the BP oil disaster.
The H1N1 Scandal
Last year, the H1N1 scandal reached its pinnacle in the fall of 2009
when the world united on the internet with a consensus and practical
understanding of the World Health Organization's
orchestratration to deceive the masses. From radio, internet, television, newspapers, magazines, outdoor posters, signage and promotions, you could not escape the
flu hype campaigns so diligently pursued by all the malicious agendas at play who only wanted one thing - to
promote a dangerous H1N1 vaccine. After
hundreds of reports exposed the criminal activity by all levels of government, we left the same people in power to do it all over again.
According to preliminary reports, another round of pandemic vaccine
campaigns are scheduled for the 2010/2011 season and they're already
underway. However, there appears to be a recombination that has
changed the H1N1 lab created virus into a more lethal form and it is not a hoax, but it may be yet another
CDC lab experiment.
The CDC has recently issued a
Health Advisory in connection with two summer outbreaks of H3N2 in Iowa. Other reports from Russia and
India
indicate that a real epidemic may be upon us if the virus steadily
recombines and acquires new genetics. Even though a new strain may have
accidentally evolved in eggs, reassortment of H1N1-H5N1 has been a
legitimate concern for years. The WHO first suggested the
reassortment of H1N1-H5N1 in 2004.
If this is really the case, how will the public react after all the lies
from health agencies who have sworn to protect us? Will they hype
another vaccine and if so, will the public even respond?
Body Scanners
They've been approved all over the world and marketed as the next
greatest airport scanning technology. The U.S., U.K., Russia, Australia,
Europe and Canada have all installed airport body scanners which have
potentially devastating health effects.
Many of these scanners are reportedly using terahertz (THz) waves,
the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum
between microwaves and infrared.
Evidence
suggests that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects
allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the
double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as
gene expression and DNA replication.
As the path toward rolling out wider use of whole-body scanners in U.S. airports ran through the White House,
Obama
expedited their deployment because the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) didn't need
legislation from Congress to start using the devices at any of the 560
U.S. airports.
The White House ignored all the scientific evidence presented which
suggested negative health effects. Politicians and regulatory agencies
then covered up the bad publicity on
naked body scanners and focused on the presumed benefits under the guise of public safety.
Privacy commisioners and airport authorities have also insisted that
there were no risks of images being stored or personal details being
revealed to security screeners. Now there's new evidence to show that
the scanners can do just that.
According to a
CNET report,
another federal agency, the U.S. Marshall's service, admitted that it
had actually stored over 30,000 images recorded by a full-body scanner
used at a Florida courthouse.
A watchdog group called the
Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) obtained over 100 of the images and states on its web site that,
"The images, which are routinely captured by the federal agency, prove
that body scanning devices store and record images of individuals
stripped naked." The group has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment
of body scanners at airports.
EPIC also discovered that the TSA actually specified to manufacturers
that the machines have the ability to send and store images. The TSA
says that these functions are only for testing and training and
insists on its web site that the airport body scanners are delivered to airports with storage and recording functions disabled.
Again, the upper levels of the echelon are caught lying and deceiving,
yet they are still left to their own devices to further manipulate and
continue misrepresenting facts to the gullible public.
BP Oil Disaster
When news unfolded about the April 20, 2010 BP oil disaster, it went
from bad to worse. Instead of immediately mobilizing for action in the
face of a massive public health threat, the response was to cover-up,
deny and respond with ignorance. After all the public will always
believe them, or so they thought.
The Obama administration, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Coast
Guard commandant admiral Thad Allen, energy and climate-change policy
adviser Carol Browner, BP and all their contituents conspired to
deliberately mislead the public from the inception of the disaster to
present day. What's worse is they all agreed to further disseminate
toxins in the Gulf by spraying 1.8 to 2 million gallons of the
neurotoxin Corexit which was exposed by over a
hundred scientists,
toxicologists
and other experts who have unequivocally classified the irresponsible
aerial spraying of the chemical dispersant as a large-scale,
uncontrolled non-consensual human and environmental experiment is being
conducted in the Gulf region.
The
media was grossly censoring the extent of the devastation in the Gulf.
The poisons--oil and corexit are destined to spread globally, but
honest reporting was and still is restricted, and many independent
investigators have been arrested. Read
30 Facts Evidencing that The Gulf Oil Crisis Was Planned.
On June 12, 2010,
The Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC) released "
Risk of Global Climate Change By BP Oil Spill",
a document detailing how the BP spill may cause irreparable damage to
the Gulf Stream global climate thermoregulation activity. Read
Gulf Loop Current Destroyed: May Lead To Shut Down of Atlantic Thermoregulation, Rapid Cooling.
According to Dr. Gianluigi Zangari, an Italian theoretical physicist,
and major complex and chaotic systems analyst at the Frascati National
Laboratories in Italy, the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico has
stalled as a consequence of the BP oil spill disaster. Zangari notes
that the effects of this stall have also begun to spread to the Gulf
Stream. This is because the Loop Current is a crucial element of the
Gulf Stream itself and why it is commonly referred to as the “main
engine” of the Stream.
The concern now, is whether or not natural processes can re-establish
the stalled Loop Current. If not, we could begin to see global crop
failures as early as 2011.
Zangari's assessment is based on daily monitoring of real-time data
oceanographic satellite public data feeds called “Real-Time Mesoscale
Altimetry” from the Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat, Follow-On, ERS-2 and
Envisat satellites.
These satellite feeds are captured and made publicly available by NASA, NOAA and by the
Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research (CCAR) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The CCAR is now being accused of scientific fraud and tampering of
data directly associated with the events surrounding the Loop Current
phenomenon and its current anomalies. Various reporters have
spear-headed the charge including radio personality Dr. Bill Deagle who
has featured Dr. Zangari on his radio show
The Nutrimedical Report where he detailed the events leading up to the destruction of the Loop Current in the Gulf.
Dr. Zangari has stated that he will no longer use CCAR data due to its unreliability.
Organized and Professional Disinformation Operations
Well-funded and highly-organized disinformation operations are in
full-swing throughout the internet. From forums to comment boards and
even professional websites that have only one purpose: Defame, distract,
and destroy the truth.
However organized, the tactics are very predictable in a world filled
with lies and half-truths. This, sadly, includes every day news media,
one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of
disinformation.
Disinformation campaigns are launched against those seeking to uncover
and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. The H1N1 scandal was a prime
example of how hundreds of operations can be launched to sway opinions
on the facts. For every fact-based article on the
realities of the H1N1 vaccine,
there were both very primitive and sophisticated counters on message
boards, comment forums and hundreds of alternative and mainstream
websites.
Stephen Barrett's
Quackwatch.com and supporters such as
skeptic.org.uk and
skepticblog.com
are examples of websites which promote both synthetic and organic
disinformation on almost any topic that does not concur with mainstream
thought.
There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as H.
Michael Sweeney has brilliantly detailed. Also included with this
material are eight common traits of the disinfo artist which may also
prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular
party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more
likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.
People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing
disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.
A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will
evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are
solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further
development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more
links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if
parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link
was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is
played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably
to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist
to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the
links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose
alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply
impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a
level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and
rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break
the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won
out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a
whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must
be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the
creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with
honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it
is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a
particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as
long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and
chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by
means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those
who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent
rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would
hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be
overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of
lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional
criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to
apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However,
the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is
often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not
even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these
issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the
rules of the game.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you
are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't
happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which
can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise
sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!'
gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of
venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory
terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works
especially well with a silent press because the only way the public can
learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a
'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no
basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which
you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to
look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on
your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or
select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their
significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the
charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion
of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents
with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia',
'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label,
and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the
opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded,
or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and
letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new
identities can be called upon without having to explain critical
reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing
issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would
dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives.
Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the
opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This
avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present
your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are
'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or
demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid
discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make
any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or
support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter
of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or
were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future
should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen,
have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early
on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges,
regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be
associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a
rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better
where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road'
and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was
made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all
out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just aren't
so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly
'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the
right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for
'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more
serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and
the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too
complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to
begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual
issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an
apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand
completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a
way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial
comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic.
This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over
the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid
discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and
draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look
foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material
somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in
the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the
issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how
'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the
material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent
to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be
something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a
murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may
be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or
books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny
that statements made by government or other authorities have any
meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and
manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools
to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best
when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the
facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all
sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence
and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For
instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand
Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an
unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is
achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this
technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or
influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific,
investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes
favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do
so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive
issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such
as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to
distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics.
If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from
circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address
issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and
detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of
blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially,
emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish.
If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated
and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate
the kitchen.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive
input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather,
they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about
their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the
matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the
hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents,
or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly
address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any
success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new
controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in
general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They
likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern.
They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and
vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs
or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but
there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this
sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will
infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other
tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial
They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and,
usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask
yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do
they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on
conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools
of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such
disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions
An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin
-- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming
criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence
community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny
everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net
result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most
people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their
animosity throughout their rebuttal.
But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and
are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually
more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they
often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a
communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face
conversation/confrontation.
You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the
next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being
thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their
job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without
any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that
game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others
think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and
so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true
self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it
may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really
root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory
information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one
such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor
communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having
only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who
don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a
particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant
There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the
government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up
operation:
- ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in
an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can
afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do
some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT -
FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
- When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist,
such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a
48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response
strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or
instruction from a formal chain of command.
- In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that
bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the
team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth
seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to
potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked
twice for the same sin.
Remarkably, even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to
deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves
understand the rules of the game.
Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and
consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public
Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics
such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy. 
